Dio Cassius

Greek-Roman historian, senator, and administrator

• Born: c. 150
• Birthplace: Nicaea, Bithynia, Asia Minor (now İznik, Turkey)
• Died: c. 235
• Place of death: Probably Nicaea, Bithynia (now İznik, Turkey)

Dio Cassius wrote an important history of Rome and its empire, with eighty volumes about Roman politics and major events from the mythical beginning of the city until 229 c.e.

Early Life

Most of the details known about the life of Dio Cassius (DI-oh KASH-ee-uhs) come from his historical writings, which include numerous statements about his experiences in Rome and his various political offices. Although these writings provide only sketchy information about his early life, they indicate that he was raised in a wealthy and politically powerful family in Nicaea. His father, Cassius Apronianus, was a senator who served for several years as governor of Cilicia and Dalmatia. Probably Dio was a near relative of the famous orator and teacher of rhetoric Dio Chrysostom.

Dio Cassius apparently lived most of his formative years in his native city of Nicaea, a prosperous commercial center and a vital crossroads for the military forces of the Empire. His writings suggest that he sometimes stayed with his father in other provinces when his father was serving as governor. Dio’s native language was Greek, which would remain the language of his writings, although his position also required a fluent command of Latin. He was educated primarily by sophists, a term that then referred generally to persons with special training and skills in the art of rhetoric. Such an educational emphasis was common among the Greek-Roman governing elite, who would expect to use rhetorical arts in their later careers. Dio frequently expressed a bias against speculative philosophy, which was probably not a significant part of his education.

There is indirect evidence that Dio had a wife and children, although the details are uncertain. Because his works contain several references to the delights of marriage, it is considered likely that he had a happy family life. While identifying primarily with Greek cultural life, Dio expressed a strong sense of loyalty toward the Roman Empire and took pride in its power and achievements. Apparently this pro-Roman point of view was more common among the Greek-speaking elite than among the masses of Greek speakers in the rural areas. Dio’s interests would always center in the eastern portions of the Empire. While participating in the governing of the Empire, his roots would remain in his native region. There is no evidence that he ever ventured west of Rome.

Life’s Work

Following his father’s death (c. 180), Dio Cassius moved to Rome. At that time or shortly thereafter, he became a member of the senate. Thus, his entrance into politics occurred at approximately the same time that Marcus Aurelius (the last of the “five good emperors”) died and was succeeded by the unstable and dictatorial Commodus, whose reign was characterized by dangerous intrigue and civil conflict. Even after Commodus was strangled in 192, Dio continued to live under unstable governments during most of his political career, experiencing a succession of short-term emperors. His career had its lows and highs depending on which emperor was in power. Living during a period when life was very precarious for members of the senate, he managed to avoid intrigues and was never disgraced or involved in any major controversy.

Shortly after Pertinax became emperor in 193, Dio was appointed to serve as praetor (or military magistrate). Although Pertinax’s reign lasted less than a year, Dio continued as praetor for the next decade. He enthusiastically supported the ascension of Lucius Septimius Severus, and he was rewarded with the title of consul in 204. Within two years, however, he retired temporarily from public life, probably because he disagreed with Severus’s polices. While in temporary retirement, Dio spent most of his time doing research and writing his history. He returned to political life after Caracalla became emperor, and in 216, he served as a member of Caracalla’s staff during a major campaign in the eastern provinces.

In 217, Emperor Macrinus appointed Dio curator (or supervisor) of cities in Pergamum and Smyrna, a position he held for more than six years. Severus Alexander, whose reign lasted from 222 to 235, appointed Dio to even more important positions, first as proconsul of Africa and then as governor of Dalmatia and Upper Pannonia, which were both military provinces. Dio was one of the few Greeks to have governed military provinces in central Europe. The province of Upper Pannonia was especially known for its fierce and disorderly population, requiring Dio, contrary to his mild temperament, to employ strict discipline and military coercion.

In addition to personal competence, Dio’s rise to prominence was a result of the resurgence of the senate’s power and prestige. In 229, he became consul for the second time, an honor achieved by very few Greeks. Later that same year, due to failing health, he wrote that he was retiring from politics in order to spend the rest of his life in Bithynia, which he called his native land. The cessation of his writing suggests that he probably did not live much longer after this date.

Dio is remembered much more for his historical work than for his political career. He apparently began to write history in the year 193, with the publication of a short booklet that contained the story of dreams and omens foretelling the future greatness of Emperor Septimius Severus. Most likely Dio obtained this information directly from the emperor himself. Both the emperor and the public favorably received the book, and soon thereafter Dio resolved to write a full history of Rome and its empire. At this time, most literate persons believed that the field of history dealt chiefly with political and military affairs. Another common assumption was that a participant in public affairs, a man like Dio, was especially qualified to write about such matters.

Dio’s most significant work was his voluminous Romaika (probably c. 202 c.e.; Roman History, 1914-1927), which originally encompassed the thousand years from Rome’s legendary founding until Dio’s final retirement. For models, he tried to combine the works of Thucydides, the historian, and Demosthenes, the orator. In preparation for writing his history, Dio claimed to have spent ten years gathering information and reading the available sources, which included Livy, Tacitus, Seneca, Suetonius, Julius Caesar, Plutarch, and Aulus Cremutius Cordus. After his research, Dio then spent twelve years in the writing of his history. It is possible that portions of the Roman History were first written as separate accounts of particular reigns. Less than half of Dio’s historical work has been preserved, but it should be noted that in the ancient world a large percentage of such works disappeared altogether.

The Roman History was divided into three main periods of time. The first was the era of the Republic, when power resided primarily in the senate and with the citizens. The second era extended from the establishment of the monarchy under Caesar Augustus until the death of Marcus Aurelius. The third period was that of Dio’s own age, about which he had firsthand knowledge. Like many Roman historians, Dio often used the traditional organization of the annalists, in which all the events of a given year, regardless of where they occurred, were grouped together. He was not consistent, however, in following the annalist organization, and he abandoned it almost completely when writing about his own era.

From the modern perspective of objective historiography, the value of Dio’s history is diminished by two of his theoretical perspectives. First, Dio, like many others at that time, was committed to being a rhetorician as well as a historian. Thus, if the bare facts did not appear to be sufficiently dramatic, he did not hesitate to adorn or modify them to make them more memorable. It should not be surprising, therefore, that many of the speeches quoted or summarized in his works are not considered authentic. For instance, one of his chapters included an alleged speech of Maecenas to Augustus that was really a political pamphlet defending Dio’s theory of government. Second, Dio was interested primarily in the larger significance of historical events, not in details and personal anecdotes. For this reason, his discussions of events sometimes omitted any reference to particular names, accurate dates, exact numbers, and geographical descriptions. When desiring to make a political or ethical point, moreover, he would project the Imperial situation of his own day on the earlier periods of time, which tended to produce distortions about what had actually happened in the past.

Dio wrote history from the point of view of the Greco-Roman aristocracy. While consistently defending the prerogatives of the senate, he was also a strong believer in the monarchy, and he was critical of people such as Cicero who opposed monarchical institutions. Like most of his fellow aristocrats, moreover, Dio distrusted the common people and the idea of democracy.

While emphasizing politics, Dio took a great deal of interest in the religions of the Empire. When discussing Pompey’s capture of Jerusalem in 63 b.c.e., for example, he included a rather long digression about the Jewish religion. Dio’s writings never mentioned Christianity, even though it was growing and attracting considerable attention during his lifetime. In discussing the burning of Rome in 64 c.e., he simply assumed that Nero was responsible, without any references to the possible guilt of the Christians. When recounting the “miracle of the rainstorm” that presumably saved a Roman army under Marcus Aurelius, Dio repeated the official version, which attributed the miracle to an Egyptian magus, Arnuphis.

Although a skeptic when examining historical sources, Dio appeared to adhere fervently to the major pagan beliefs and practices of the Empire. He accepted the notion that portents (such as dreams and omens) were valid predictors of the future, and he frequently referred to his personal dreams in which divine forces or deities accurately predicted future events. He often visited pagan temples, and he actively participated in their religious rituals. At the temple of Mallos, for instance, he said a prayer while throwing frankincense in the river Aoos, and he explained that one’s prayers would be granted if the river accepted the frankincense.

Significance

Because of limitations in accuracy and analysis, Dio Cassius is usually classified as one of the second-class historians of the ancient world. His historical work, nevertheless, is valuable for its corroboration of other ancient works and for the additional details it provides. His treatment of the Empire is considered more dependable than what he wrote about the earlier Republic. Some modern historians believe that his account of Caesar Augustus’s regime is the best extant discussion of that era. Dio’s personal observations about Roman personalities, politics, and daily life during his own period are considered to be especially valuable. Following his death, his work had little influence on his immediate successors, but it later became a standard source under the Byzantine Empire, which is the reason so much of it was preserved.

Roman Emperors During Dio Cassius’s Career

161-180

• Marcus Aurelius

161-169

• Lucius Verus

180-192

• Commodus

193

• Pertinax

193

• Didius Julianus

193-211

• Septimius Severus

193-194

• Pescennius Niger

211-217

• Caracalla

211-212

• Geta

217-218

• Macrinus

218-222

• Elagabalus

222-235

• Severus Alexander

Bibliography

Barnes, Timothy. “The Composition of Dio Cassius’s Roman History.” Phoenix 38 (1984): 240-255. An excellent introduction to Dio’s historical theories and methods.

Cary, Earnest. Introduction to vol. 1 of Dio’s Roman History, by Dio Cassius. Translated by Earnest Cary. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1961. Cary’s introduction provides a relatively short, readable, and dependable introduction to Dio’s career and historical writings.

Gowing, Alain. The Triumviral Narratives of Appian and Dio Cassius. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1992. A scholarly comparison of the historical work of two contemporary Greek historians, with a more favorable judgment toward Appian’s work.

Grant, Michael. Greek and Roman Historians: Information and Misinformation. New York: Routledge, 1995. By concentrating on the nature of historiography during Dio’s period, Grant’s book helps place his work in its historical context so that modern readers can appreciate its strengths and weaknesses.

Millar, Fergus. A Study of Dio Cassius. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press, 1964. A pioneering study of Dio’s ideas, methods, and historical writings. While much of the book is for scholars, the first chapter provides a readable and interesting biography.

Murison, Charles. Rebellion and Reconstruction: Galba to Domitian. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999. One of a series of eleven proposed volumes designed to make it easier for readers to appreciate and understand Dio’s history. Murison’s introduction is especially good.